The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

November 1955 CINE TECHNICIAN 163 CINE TECHNICIAN EDITORIAL EALING OHEPHERDS BUSH, Islington, ^ Teddington, Welwyn, Isleworth, Denham and the rest. Now Ealing, undoubtedly the greatest blow of all. Much as we remember the fine record of the earlier studios, there is no doubt that Ealing represents the greatest blow to British films. There can be no film-going audience throughout the world which has not heard of Ealing productions and associated them with the finest traditions of British films. No one, in mourning the passing of Ealing, wishes to criticise the sterling services which Sir Michael Balcon and Reginald Baker have rendered British films. But that does not mean that we share the view that there was no other way out of their difficulties. As the All-Industry Trade Union Deputation told the President of the Board of Trade, we blame the Government much more than either Ealing or the B.B.C. Particularly we do not accept Captain Thorneycroft's naive statement that the sale is simply a matter of a willing buyer and a willing seller. Of course the B.B.C. was a willing buyer and no one would dispute the fact that they have got a good bargain, but equally one cannot believe that those who owned Ealing Studios were willing sellers in the sense some would have us believe. If there were difficulties in running the studio commercially, although the last published balance sheet does not indicate this, then surely the solution would have been for the Board of Trade to advise the National Film Finance Corporation who, we believe, were the biggest creditors of Ealing and its associates, to step in and take over the studio in the broad interests of the film industry as they took over Shepperton some while ago. No one, and least of all the A.C.T., wishes to prevent the expansion and development of the B.B.C. But, as we made clear in our public protests at the sale of of Ealing Studios, British television and films should develop together and not one at the expense of the other. Now there are only three major British con trolled studios left and only one other, American-controlled, of major size. The President of the Board of Trade told the Union deputation that there was no evidence of shortage of studio space, no evidence that the sale of Ealing would lead to less film production, and no evidence that the sale of the Studios would lead to loss of employment. But he refused to answer what he called a hypothetical question as to whether, if there was such evidence, he would intervene and, now that there were only four major studios left, at what stage would he consider it proper to intervene in the interests of the British film industry. We do not accept Captain Thorneycroft's statement as to studio space, production, or employment. It is, of course, true that no independent producer would think of setting up a film unless studio space was available, and for that reason there are no productions queueing up for studio space; but there is no doubt at all that if there were more studio space available it would by itself encourage production, and independent producers, particularly, would be induced to produce more films. The sale of Ealing must lead to less production, particularly as we understand such films as Ealing makes in the future will be made at one of the other existing present studios. The major studios are fully occupied. Therefore any Ealing films made in those studios will mean less production from other sources. Similarly any employment of Ealing personnel elsewhere must lead to a general contraction of total employment. We therefore condemn the Government for refusing to take action to safeguard an industry for which it has overall responsibility, and we regret that Ealing Studios and the B.B.C. have entered into a deal which will do as much harm to the future of British films as the proud record of Ealing in the past has helped to foster their wellbeing. THE BUDGET rPHE General Council at its last -*■ meeting expressed grave concern at the severe attack on the standard of living of its members and of other Trade Unionists as a result of the proposals of the Autumn Budget. A sum of money almost identical with that of the tax concessions of last April has now been recovered by the Exchequer in its new taxes. But the principal beneficiaries of the April Budget are not those to make the sacrifices this October. In April it was those in the higher income bracket who received the tax concessions: today it is the housewife and her shopping-basket, the worker living in a rented house, and those to whom the social services are the greatest boon who will have to make the sacrifices. Not only will the Budget lead to immediate hardship to households but to long-term hardships through cuts in capital expenditure in certain of the key industries, to cuts in schools and hospitals and to increased difficulties for local authorities in proceeding with their housing plans, and, of course to increase'^ costs which they will incur. The Trade Unions have already made it clear that they will not stand by idly and see the standard of living of their members deteriorate through such political machinations. A.C.T. is no exception, and, even in the case of increases recently obtained it must be noted that they were rises already merited and further applications will most assuredly be necessary. CINE TECHNICIAN Editor: MARTIN CHISHOLM Editorial Office: 2 Soho Square, W.l Telephone: GERrard 8506 Advertisement Office: 5 and 6 Red Lion Sq., W.C.I Telephone: HOLborn 4972